moothemagiccow:Cythraul: "I was in my tolerance stage or the 'I don't give a damn if someone is gay, just as long as they don't bother me' stage. I was well trained in my tolerance," Booker began his piece. "I stopped telling gay jokes. F*gs, flamers, and d*kes became homosexuals and people of differing sexual orientation and, of course, I had a gay friend."

The _______ friend. I love that old cliche. I wonder what made him change his behavior? Probably deciding to become a politician.

Booker also wrote about how he tried to hide his feelings a lot of the time, but when around gays could not help himself.

When around them? That's almost farking pathological right there.

Sorry your idea of sex is both gross, hilarious, and the subject of every great insult. Here, have some rights.

Not the good ones, mind. Just the spare rights we have stored in the attic.And no, I didn't mean Canada, goddamnit.

This. The original op-ed was an amazing, well-written account of a true LGBT ally in 1992 (not 1990, like TFA states). I never would of suspected a hack could twist it into a negative. The article is directly misleading with its bullshiat "By the end of his piece, Booker softened both his tone and view on LGBT people." line. Booker was already an ally in 1992; he was talking about the past and using it as a moral lesson. TFA is a complete hit piece.

His honesty is refreshing. He seems like he had a more progressive attitude in 1990 than most Republicans have today, 20 years later.

I think most men his age went through an arc of prejudice/bigotry on sexuality over the course of their lives. I was bigoted in my thoughts in 1985 when I was 15. I didn't start becoming less of an asshole until I was in my 20's. I feel like I finally became mostly open-minded and accepting of homosexuality by the mid 1990s. I blame my upbringing/peers to a large extent. My kids will won't have those issues at any point in their lives hopefully. The idea of thinking any less of anyone today based on their sexual preference would just make me ill today and seems pointless. Even when I was dealing with my own attitudes, I have always been against institutional bigotry as I suspect/hope Booker is.

You're responding to a guy who wrote an op-ed in a college newspaper in 1990 about letting go of his disgust for gay people and learning to embrace them. He made a public apology to the gay community at a time when virtually no one would have faulted him for being openly homophobic.

Editorial is here."It was chilling to find that so much of the testimony he shared with me was almost identical to stories my grandparents told me about growing up Black. People found it revolting to share a meal with them and often felt it to be their duty to beat them so that they would learn proper living. Well, it didn't take me long to realize that the root of my hatred did not lie with gays but with myself. It was my problem. A problem I dealt with by ceasing to tolerate gays and instead seeking to embrace them. In these efforts I have found another community with which I feel akin and from which I draw strength. The gay people with whom I am close are some of the strongest, most passionate and caring people I know and their demands for justice are no less imperative than those of any other community."

I can say I never had a problem with gays on an emotional level, so I never had a "come to Jesus" moment that went from hating to accepting.

But with regard to understanding their struggle for equality and civil rights, I can say I came to the same conclusion through the same logic.

mrshowrules:His honesty is refreshing. He seems like he had a more progressive attitude in 1990 than most Republicans have today, 20 years later.

I think most men his age went through an arc of prejudice/bigotry on sexuality over the course of their lives. I was bigoted in my thoughts in 1985 when I was 15. I didn't start becoming less of an asshole until I was in my 20's. I feel like I finally became mostly open-minded and accepting of homosexuality by the mid 1990s. I blame my upbringing/peers to a large extent. My kids will won't have those issues at any point in their lives hopefully. The idea of thinking any less of anyone today based on their sexual preference would just make me ill today and seems pointless. Even when I was dealing with my own attitudes, I have always been against institutional bigotry as I suspect/hope Booker is.

We're the same age - I probably could have written the exact same post. Had a little get together with a half-dozen good friends from high school who have scattered near and far for school, careers and marriage. I'd say we pretty much ALL shared a similar trajectory on this one.

Calling the guy a liar or someone just being political serves little purpose - if anything unconditional support should be offered if only to say to the next group of people "Hey, it's ok to pull your head out of your ass at some point and change the way you think...."

Cythraul:The _______ friend. I love that old cliche. I wonder what made him change his behavior? Probably deciding to become a politician.

He was 21 when he penned his change in beliefs. He didn't run for office for another 8 years. Perhaps he grew up? Did you not change any of your beliefs after High School? Holy fark dude you're being harsh.

Lumpmoose:This. The original op-ed was an amazing, well-written account of a true LGBT ally in 1992 (not 1990, like TFA states). I never would of suspected a hack could twist it into a negative. The article is directly misleading with its bullshiat "By the end of his piece, Booker softened both his tone and view on LGBT people." line. Booker was already an ally in 1992; he was talking about the past and using it as a moral lesson. TFA is a complete hit piece.

Yup. It's also worth noting that Booker was all of ~22 years old at that point. His "past views" were as a teenaged male in the late 1980s, or a Division I college football player.

I'm willing to bet that a poll of teenaged males and/or Division I college football players in the late 1980s would show that the views ranged from "quietly hostile" to "openly hostile" to "has committed assault" on the topic of homosexuality. He was embracing the gay community at a time when there was no "political" benefit to doing so, and the opposite was likely true.

Naw, lets not do that. How about we try to look at something without picking a side first. Everyone agrees that gay-bashing is wrong no matter who does it. If there is evidence that Booker had an epiphany, or that he has governed in a way that is favorable to gays regarding their civil rights, then have that discussion. But I don't think we should dismiss it because "both sides are bad". We give Republicans the blues when they try that stuff.

Fizpez:Calling the guy a liar or someone just being political serves little purpose - if anything unconditional support should be offered if only to say to the next group of people "Hey, it's ok to pull your head out of your ass at some point and change the way you think....

I have more respect for a bigoted person working on their attitude than a slightly bigoted person who is comfortable with their attitude and isn't trying to be more open minded. Worst of all is people who act out on their ignorance/fear and wish to impose it on others through social policy.

You did not read the article. He said he used to be disgusted, now he thinks they are FABULOUS

Not saying that Cory's gay - not seriously, anyway - but I have met gay men with a lot of self hatred who are disgusted by gay sex after the fact. Doesn't stop them from seeking it out from time to time, though.

Objectively speaking, what gay people do together sexually is disgusting. What straight people do together is also disgusting. It is only that one or the other floats your boat, is what makes it acceptable to you.

SuperT:Who knows. Maybe decades from now it'll be gay people voting against some other minority.

Who's currently hated more than the gheys? Furries?

Muslims.

atheists.

As an atheist, I know that I am not being discriminated or persecuted or oppressed. At least not openly or vociferously. I haven't tried to run for office to test out the limits of atheist-hate. However, living in San Francisco, being an atheist is a non-starter.

At the moment, I think the extremely poor are being oppressed and persecuted, the muslims to an extent, but only those who are overtly muslim, which really means the sikhs, who aren't muslim, for wearing the turban and have other sikh accoutrements.

Give it time. There's only so many different minority statuses. Eventually, people will learn to live in harmony with all of them. I'm hopeful for the future.

lennavan:Cythraul: The _______ friend. I love that old cliche. I wonder what made him change his behavior? Probably deciding to become a politician.

He was 21 when he penned his change in beliefs. He didn't run for office for another 8 years. Perhaps he grew up? Did you not change any of your beliefs after High School? Holy fark dude you're being harsh.

I went to what appeared to be a very liberal-attitude high school (at least that's what it seemed like to me). So when I went to college, I kept my rather liberal views and saw how conservative other people were. It was so stark to see people have such close-minded views. I didn't change to that view, thank gawd.

I think, over time, people will become more liberal-minded. It has to happen. When people see more and more examples that explode their closed-minded world views of things, when they see the spectrum and not things only in black and white, they have to open their mind.

Accepting blacks, or women or gays doesn't mean or require that you have to be one. I get on a bus everyday and see all sorts of people there. I accept them all.

Cythraul:"I was in my tolerance stage or the 'I don't give a damn if someone is gay, just as long as they don't bother me' stage. I was well trained in my tolerance," Booker began his piece. "I stopped telling gay jokes. F*gs, flamers, and d*kes became homosexuals and people of differing sexual orientation and, of course, I had a gay friend."

The _______ friend. I love that old cliche. I wonder what made him change his behavior? Probably deciding to become a politician.

Booker also wrote about how he tried to hide his feelings a lot of the time, but when around gays could not help himself.

When around them? That's almost farking pathological right there.

Wow. You almost set a world record jumping to that conclusion. That's some Fox News-level derp you've got going on there.

I think its a pretty realistic idea that gays are or will be tolerated in society. Treated fairly and represented by the law.

Acceptance, well, ill use myself as an example. I cant eat poop. My body is wired so that if i smell it, or see it, i get this clinch of repulsion right in my belly. Its physically repulsive to me.

Some people are wired different. They eat it. Paint in it. Roll around in it. Its their thing. Do it love it whatever, just dont let me in on it.

I can tolerate something that disgusts me. I can be nice and you can live your life how you see fit. Have fun.

You cant make me think its cool, normal or ok. I will never accept it as being part of the natural order. This goes for chicks or dudes. Same sex sex is repulsive to me and many others.

whether you accept it or not has no bearing on it actually being part of the natural order

No, it doesnt.

You accepting it does not either.

True but in this case homosexuality in nonetheless part of the natural order of things. I might find short red headed people creepy (I don't) but even if I did, I wouldn't be dumb enough to honestly believe they weren't a natural or part of the natural order of things.

I think you are confusing what is natural versus what you wish was natural. Or, it is an aspect of nature you find disgusting based on either religious/cultural influence, your upbringing, your personality or a combination thereof but that does not make it unnatural.

I think its a pretty realistic idea that gays are or will be tolerated in society. Treated fairly and represented by the law.

Acceptance, well, ill use myself as an example. I cant eat poop. My body is wired so that if i smell it, or see it, i get this clinch of repulsion right in my belly. Its physically repulsive to me.

Some people are wired different. They eat it. Paint in it. Roll around in it. Its their thing. Do it love it whatever, just dont let me in on it.

I can tolerate something that disgusts me. I can be nice and you can live your life how you see fit. Have fun.

You cant make me think its cool, normal or ok. I will never accept it as being part of the natural order. This goes for chicks or dudes. Same sex sex is repulsive to me and many others.

whether you accept it or not has no bearing on it actually being part of the natural order

No, it doesnt.

You accepting it does not either.

True but in this case homosexuality in nonetheless part of the natural order of things. I might find short red headed people creepy (I don't) but even if I did, I wouldn't be dumb enough to honestly believe they weren't a natural or part of the natural order of things.

I think you are confusing what is natural versus what you wish was natural. Or, it is an aspect of nature you find disgusting based on either religious/cultural influence, your upbringing, your personality or a combination thereof but that does not make it unnatural.

Natural, i believe, is the default. Male and female court. Mate. Reproduce. Its obvious that is the design of our species and most mammals. Deviations from that are just that. Deviant.

If you do not perform your intended function you are a failure of that design, not a part of it. You are outside of normal. A mutation if you will.

I think its a pretty realistic idea that gays are or will be tolerated in society. Treated fairly and represented by the law.

Acceptance, well, ill use myself as an example. I cant eat poop. My body is wired so that if i smell it, or see it, i get this clinch of repulsion right in my belly. Its physically repulsive to me.

Some people are wired different. They eat it. Paint in it. Roll around in it. Its their thing. Do it love it whatever, just dont let me in on it.

I can tolerate something that disgusts me. I can be nice and you can live your life how you see fit. Have fun.

You cant make me think its cool, normal or ok. I will never accept it as being part of the natural order. This goes for chicks or dudes. Same sex sex is repulsive to me and many others.

whether you accept it or not has no bearing on it actually being part of the natural order

No, it doesnt.

You accepting it does not either.

True but in this case homosexuality in nonetheless part of the natural order of things. I might find short red headed people creepy (I don't) but even if I did, I wouldn't be dumb enough to honestly believe they weren't a natural or part of the natural order of things.

I think you are confusing what is natural versus what you wish was natural. Or, it is an aspect of nature you find disgusting based on either religious/cultural influence, your upbringing, your personality or a combination thereof but that does not make it unnatural.

Natural, i believe, is the default. Male and female court. Mate. Reproduce. Its obvious that is the design of our species and most mammals. Deviations from that are just that. Deviant.

If you do not perform your intended function you are a failure of that design, not a part of it. You are outside of normal. A mutation if you will.

Dolphins use their digits for something other than grasping, their obvious function, dolphins are therefore deviant and unnatural.

dericwater:As an atheist, I know that I am not being discriminated or persecuted or oppressed. At least not openly or vociferously. I haven't tried to run for office to test out the limits of atheist-hate. However, living in San Francisco, being an atheist is a non-starter.

At the moment, I think the extremely poor are being oppressed and persecuted, the muslims to an extent, but only those who are overtly muslim, which really means the sikhs, who aren't muslim, for wearing the turban and have other sikh accoutrements.

Give it time. There's only so many different minority statuses. Eventually, people will learn to live in harmony with all of them. I'm hopeful for the future.

I agree with all of this except I'd put obese or even moderately overweight people slightly ahead of the extremely poor when it comes to the next group to be bashed by the previous group of bashees.

Meanwhile, as an atheist myself I remember seeing, in the battle against H8 in 2008, a lot more tolerance & support for the LGTB community amongst my atheist friends than vice versa. Not that atheists were faced with anything like Prop 8 at the time, or indeed at any time in the past century. I told a gay Christian coworker of mine that I had joined a group of atheists in protesting the proposition in the weeks leading up to election night and he told me "We don't want your help."

/Screw 'em - they got my help anyway.//Drove through an intersection wailing on my horn with a NO H8 sign out the sunroof.///Seven times.

Cythraul:"I was in my tolerance stage or the 'I don't give a damn if someone is gay, just as long as they don't bother me' stage. I was well trained in my tolerance," Booker began his piece. "I stopped telling gay jokes. F*gs, flamers, and d*kes became homosexuals and people of differing sexual orientation and, of course, I had a gay friend."

The _______ friend. I love that old cliche. I wonder what made him change his behavior? Probably deciding to become a politician.